tv [untitled] December 31, 2013 10:00am-10:31am PST
>> are you ready >> okay, great. >> good evening and welcome to the december 18th, 2013 meeting of the board of appeals and the preceding officer this evening is wo ng and she is joined by lazarus, and frank fung and honda and. i am the board's executive director, and we are also joined tonight by the representatives that have cases before the board, corey is here, he is is acting zoning administrator and also representing the planning department and the planning
commission, and urban forester representing the department of public works, and we should be joined shortly by joseph duffy who will be representing the commission of inspection. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings and carry on the conversations in the hallway, appellants and permit holders and department representatives each has seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3-minute periods, members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a
business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens were available on the left side of the podium and the board welcomes your comments and suggestions, there are satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium and if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or schedules, speak to the board staff during a break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, the office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sf gov tv and cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase, directly from sfgov tv and thank you for your attention and at this point in time, we will conduct our swearing in process, and if you intend to testify at tonight's hearing and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight rntion please stand and raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or
affirmed. note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath purchase purchase su ant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. >> thank you. >> and we have one housekeeping item this evening and this has to do with item number five, 13, 1-,,, 13-139 and they have asked that it be reschedule to january nine and allow for both parties to submit on the schedule and we need a motion to move it to that date. >> i am move to continue the hearing to january 29th. >> okay, is there any public comment on item five?
>> seeing none, could you please call the roll. on that request to reschedule to january 29th, commissioner if you think? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and that matter is reschedule to january 29th. >> thank you. >> so we will move then to item one, which is general public comment, and if there is anyone here who would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar. okay, seeing none, we will move to item two, which is commissioner comments and questions, commissioners? >> okay. and then, item 3, which is the consideration of the board's minutes of december 11th, 2013. any changes? >> comments? >> no. i move the adoptions. >> okay. >> is there any public comment on the minutes?
>> seeing none, could you call the roll on the minutes, please? >> on that motion from the president to adopt the december 11th, 2013 minutes. commissioner if fung? >> aye. >> hurtado in >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. >> thank you. >> and we are calling item 4 a which is a jurisdiction request for the subl property is at 530 day street, the board received a letter from sulpicia mariano that the board take over jurisdiction over bpa no 2013/10/03/8437 which was issued on october 16, 2013, and the appealed ended on october 31, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on december 2, the permit holder is martin slattery and the project is new
retaining wall at rear, interior remodel and new roof deck with 30 inch high parapet and the new skylight and the revision to bpa and nos 2011/10/17/6930, and 2013/07/26/2916. we will start with the requestor please step forward. >> you have three minutes to present your case. >> okay. >> good evening, my name is sulpicio, and san francisco has been my home since i immigrated to this country for over 30 years ago and for the last 24 years i have lived on the north side of day street and the homes are modest in their appearance and size and all were built around the turn of the last century, a year ago i received from the planning
department a set of architectal drawings notifying me of the proposed house to be built east ward of mine and i was stunned to consider the significant changing to the two story structure, and being specifically to the ways that i am enjoying my surroundings and after the careful review of the plans and assessing the effects that it would create and consider the compromise, i would have to learn to take, i would have to perceive the reasonable aspects as i received from the planning department, so then, i chose not to be the voice of objection and additionally i placed good faith it with this proposed project and beginning last september to the first of last month, i was observing the changes, and proposing that they were not drawn in the plans, and i received the year ago and once again, i was certain that the changes would definite and i posed to the builder and told them that the changes were departure from the structural drawings that i
received from the planning department and the owner builder said that a number of cases have since been made. to which i replied that i had not received any notice when the planning department nor the building department that all of these revisions were made and approved, and the owner builder said that the city can no longer afford to send out revision notices and i was too astounded, by the whole incident that all that i could think of is why did the planning department even bother to set up the initial building project plan to the surrounding neighbors in the first place during the no fault of the notice and the exterior structural change, after numerous visits with the public, and planning department and the building department, i finally learned that the board of appeals where maybe i could begin to establish some resolutions with my concerns. and i would like to bring to your attention that the first place of the approved permit application for the skylight which the owner, builder filled out, the question and item
number 1 7 does this alteration, create additional height or story to the building, the owner builder, checked the no box, this page then is due to contradiction, the inspector and added the heightth and the owner builder did disclose that there would be a three and a half foot glass that would have to be fixed and fastened somewhere on the roof, which in that would also constitute additional height and also the question of the rolling skylight and the motorized skylight which is ten foot by 12 feet by two and a half feet tall. i would imp lore you members of the panel to examine and grant me a long time resident of the city that i love this appeal. thank you for your attention and care and consideration. >> thank you.
>> we can hear from the permit holder now or his agent. >> good evening commissioners, the permit that the appellant discussing covers a modest roof deck and we have a retrackable skylight that is accessible and it also covers a small retaining wall on the rear patio and those permits were retained after a careful review of the planning and building, and the structural modification were approved by the plan of dbi and also what the appellant, is talking about is an issue that effects, you know, in a way that blocks his prompt line when those, and by the way if it is 25 feet away
from us there is a lot between the project sponsor and the appellant and if you look at the planning and zoning code, nothing prevents someone from constructing a building in between us. so, in the future, you may have some other problems in terms of additional density in that particular site. our building meets the planning and building codes. our building permitting process has gone through all of the different stations. and as a final remark, my client wants to be a good neighbor and he asked me to approach the appellant and talk to him about a possibility of some some sort of a modification or compromise and i did that and i actually met with him a couple of weeks ago, i suggested to him that my client was willing to make modifications to the footprint of the roof deck.
reduction of the size, or something that my client would consider. and he would also consider the possibility of putting a glass railing, just to show a good faith and a sign of good neighbor, and that is what my client has proposed. and unfortunately, those suggestions were not accepted by the appellant. so i urge you commissioners to deny the jurisdictional request, and verify the permit that been properly issued by dbi as well as planning. >> thank you. >> thank you, we can hear from the zoning administrator, now? >> good evening, corey tea ge for the planning department staff and just for a brief background, this permit was approved over the counter by the planning department on october 7th of this year.
the planning code does require the neighborhood notification if you are expanding the building mass or the building envelope but there are specific exemptions to what trigger that requirement, specifically, zoning administrator bulletin four calls out the specific features that are exempt from the height restrictions and calls out skylights, and parapit of the maximum height of 4 feet and other roof top material and equipments that are specifically not required for go through the section 311 notification and also includes roof decks and associated railings and again if you were doing something that actually increased the building mass such as a stair or elevator penthouse, those things do require section 311 notice but the items under this permit did not require 311 notice and just briefly to address the issue of when we do, require the notice, or any issues with funding
notices, there should not be an issue with that, i am not sure where the appellant got that information, but we require notification expenses to be covered by the project sponsor, we do not actually cover that or the department ourselves. i am available for the questions. >> did the requestor, and did you have any direct communication with the requestor, you or your department? >> no. >> about the 311 requirements? >> no, after the appeal was filed, no, we have not had any contact regarding the 311. >> have you informed the requestor of what you just stated? >> correct. >> okay. thanks. >> so the 311 drawings, have you reviewed those? >> no i have not. >> and take a look at those and tell me whether you, concur that the items for the revision are not indicated at all on those drawings. >> i think that is conceded by
everyone that that was not part of the original. >> yeah. >> i have not looked at it myself and i understood that would be case and went on that assumption that they were not part of the original application for the addition that was approved that did require the 311 notice. >> okay. >> mr. duffy? >> it appeals from the building permit under and for the request, was a formitt for the current permit for the building department and it received intake and the planning department reviewed and the building department reviewed and a mechanical plan check and then it got issued from the beginning on the third of october, to the 16th of october. i don't see anything on the permit that would not meet the building code from what i see of it. and i am available for any
questions. >> could you address the boxes that were checked on the permit itself, box 17. >> i don't think that i have a copy of the permit. >> it was in the packet. >> i didn't get it. >> okay. >> one of the concerns is that the boxes were not properly checked and so that the permit was not proper. >> box number 17? >> it was checked off and... >> and it was raise the additional height. and it does not create a story, i don't think that the roof deck would be a story. and you know, that is not really adding, it is the height of the deck and i am not really clear if that is a yes or no, on that one. i would need to go back to plan check. >> what about 19?
>> no. >> well, horizontal extension would be, i think that it would clarify going horizontal and so, sometimes our questions are not cut and dry for every project, but i believe that would mean a deck going horizontal from the building and not vertically. >> if you read on the second line of the area where you can write a description under 16, the second bullet, it says a new roof deck with 30 foot high parapit. >> it is described properly on the permit, from your perspective? >> i am not sure why you are doing a parapet. it could be that it is close to the property line and need it. and going back to the number 17, it is quite possible that yes, would have been a better answer for that, i agree with you on that point. >> well, what if it was, if it
is listed in words, above that, wouldn't that sufficiently notify the issuer of the permit? what was happening here? do you know what i am asking. >> it should, question, and if there is any ambiguity, it is described appropriately in the words. >> i agree with that, yes, i do but i do think that there was additional information and my experience is that that is more for a typical addition to the property, and being in that vertical and horizontal addition. and i don't think that it falls, and i don't think that the roof deck in our staff look at these that they are thinking of a roof deck as that type of additional height and even though it is a parapet and it does add the height, and that is definitely, it is a good point. and i am not sure and hopefully i am not showing you the properly. >> and i think that i was just, and i think that i am... you know, it is your staff that reviews these and if, from where i sit t looks like it is
described and accordance with wh the project was. >> i agree, yes. >> okay. >> mr. duffy, so on the application, it talks about providing compliance with the notice of violation, kind of actually circled on the box, 18. >> yes, and notice of violation, 300670115. >> do you have any notion what that is? i >> i don't, i am not sure what the notice, i thought that i checked today and i didn't see any notices of violation on the property. this is a single family dwelling, sometimes our housing inspection services like they got their violations taken and they pill put something else on there if it was damage or dry roted stairs or something like that, and let's get that on or peeling the paint for example, and let's take care of that for well and on the permit, but i would need to look at the notice of violation up to see what that is for.
>> mr. sanchez do you know? >> commissioners, structural engineer, we used this last permit as a house cleaning permit as well. it is a series of violations from the past, one of them was dry rot, repair, and we wanted to include that response of the nov and actually put it as part of the list of items that we were going to take care of the roof deck and the parapet and the extension of the retaining wall and the patio and the response for the nov which is the dry rot repair. >> okay. >> >> i have a little bit more information this time, the original permit was actually to comply with the notice of violation and so maybe our staff saw that that violation was standing until all permits
are seeupd off and added it on this permit as well, there was a notice of violation, it was probably a previous owner, but he did not say that but i imagine that it may have been a previous owner, and when we see a violation on there we like to reference that as much as we can and so when we sign-off on the jobs we abait the violations, i don't think that it is anything that i would worry about, >> do you know what the violation was for? >> work without a permit. >> yes. >> that was for dry rot repair. >> no there was work on the inside of the property and a deck built, and at the back, i believe, and it was a few things on the notice of violation, but when you see a bigger permit like the 2011 permit, that is over 360,000 job, that work is going to take care of the violation, it is probably going to rip some of that work out and probably going to tear it out and redo
the whole property and it looks like a substantial remodel and so you are dealing with, and taking care of something from the past on a good, on a big permit. so, that is what we do. >> okay. >> it was never addressed by anyone else. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you bet. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> based on what i am heard i am not inclined to grant the request of the requestor. >> commissioners, i am of a slightly different opinion. >> okay. >> the normally i would have said that the time to appealed would have been in the first issuance of the permit, however, when you look at the photos and you look at the 311 drawings, there are quite a few
differences. >> and receiving no notice means that they have no opportunity. and so, i think that he deserves his day in court. >> motion? >> i will move to grant jurisdiction that there are differences between the 311 drawings and it has actually been constructed on both the roof plan and the elevations. okay. >> we have a motion, then from commissioner fung, to grant this jurisdiction request. and reopen the appeal period. >> on that motion, president hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> honda.
aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and the jurisdiction is granted and mr. mariano has a five day appeal period which ends next month to file this appeal. >> thank you, we will call item 4 b, which is two rehearing requests, subject property at 605, 811, and 840 gon sal les drive.letter from julian lagos, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal nos. 13-130/131/132, lagos vs. dpw buf, decided nov. 20, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold all three permits on the basis they are code compliant. permit holder: parkmerced llc. project, 1st permit: removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181658. project, 2nd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181659. project, 3rd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181660
>> mr. lagos, you have nine minutes to present your request. >> thank you, director goldstein and good evening commissioners, my name is julian lagos and once again here on behalf of our community and our trees and as you were here a month ago and you had to hear what we had regarding the preservation of these three trees and we have discovered that there has been other information that has come forth since that hearing and it is in regards to the conflicts of interest that have been discovered by myself and the number of residents and park merced regarding the city's
conflict of interest with the city. and we have discovered that there are two contracts that the city has with this company, and which we believe poses a conflict of interest. and these two contracts were awarded this year, by the city at the recommendation on my add by the urban forestry council for which miss short who is going to speak tonight in her difference, sits on. one contract, is given to arbor well for $435,000, back in february. and again, in september, this year, a $210,000 contract was awarded to arbor well and none of this information was disclosed to this board. nor was it disclosed at the initial hearing back in august to the rehearing officer in this case and so we believe
that there is a conflict of interest and a violation of the ethics code, of the city and council of san francisco. and we believe that this board can take action on it and can take disciplinary action, towards this agency, and its employees for failing to disclose this information. and that we believe that this relationship between the city and arbor well goes back beyond 2013, we have found information that the city has been doing business with arbor well as far back as 2009 when they okayed some work on behalf of dpw the department of public works to remove the trees up at the cpmc campus and so we want to bring that to your attention and we believe, that there is grounds, for rehearing on our request.
we believe that you should hold this agency responsible for failing to disclose their relationship with arbor well, in the contracts that were awarded involves a removal of 144 trees in golden gate park and we heard one of the managers state on the record at the last hearing that he does not make any money from removal of trees he is making over a half of a million dollars for removing trees for the city and county of san francisco. we believe that there is a major conflict of interest and we believe that the body has the obligation and the duty to address that conflict of interest and to grant our rehearing. i will introduce a co-on the deal, and she is with the park merced and has a background in environmental policy law and we will be presenting here the case for the conflict of